Flying (in a plane) over the vast Australian continent on my return from ‘bitsy’ Europe this week, I felt I got a metaphorical bird’s eye view of the looming Voice referendum. After months of argy-bargy, what floated to the top (while up in the clouds) was a sense of betrayal. A betrayal by the Anthony Albanese government that shrugged off Australia’s famous well-worn, fair go overcoat and donned a black leather jacket with threatening slogans all over it. I drew up a checklist of my complaints against ‘Yes’ (see below).

For a start, the Voice would establish special political powers for (those deemed to be) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, that would be inherited by their children … like in a monarchy.

The grievance-factory-produced Voice manifesto of grievances, demands, entitlements, and rights is not a document that has been studied – never mind endorsed – by the most needy people on whose behalf the activists have been clamouring. Allegedly.

The ‘blak’ elites (a specific political movement) have recruited the big man ‘whitefella’ in Canberra and embarked on a revolution with great ambitions to take over the country but with poor presentation and worse, indigestible ingredients, clumsily hidden, denied, and dismissed.

This checklist of all the reasons I and many others will vote ‘No’ can be extended, but surely it is enough. The dishonesty stands out.

• A dishonest smokescreen of ‘recognition’ as the question being put.
• A dishonest denial that treaty and reparations are primary objectives.
• A blanket of obfuscation.
• A hidden agenda, based on the exaggerated grievances from the past, long atoned and the pursuit of ‘blak’ sovereignty.
• A failure to acknowledge existing voices and why they are failing.
• A failure to release the advice from the Solicitor General.
• A failure to acknowledge that the problems the Voice intends to identify are already well-known.
• A disrespectful, even hateful antagonism toward ‘No’ campaigners, giving cover of sorts, to others who denigrate them.
• A scare campaign that a ‘No’ result would bring Australia into disrepute internationally (without evidence).
• A failure to adequately explore the legal ramifications in advance (legal profession wrangling ensues).
• A failure to design the wording so as to avoid challenge to its constitutional validity.
• A refusal to meet with regionial Aboriginal representatives who went to Canberra to be heard.
• A refusal by the Minister for indigenous Australians to publicly debate the Shadow Minister on the referendum.
• A reluctance to give the ‘No’ campaign fair and equal treatment (tax deductibility of donations, information pamphlet).
• A failure to hold a Constitutional Convention.

Democracy is not served this way.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has emerged from the campaign as a small and rather inept politician* imbued not so much with vision as with an anti-democratic agenda. Like so many on the left, his mantra is ‘whatever it takes’. Beware. Now we can see that the young fella (raised by a single mum etc etc) who loved fighting Tories has remained true to his cause. Not to Australia’s.

*Would an astute politician fail to familiarise himself with the details on which his newly proposed, controversial proposal depends … and then tell the voters in hubristic confidence, ‘Why would he?’ That statement is directly at odds with his post-election commitment to ‘the Statement from the Heart – in full’. That cannot be reference to a single page … honestly!